click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
thing that looks like it's on the back of a truck there. the president visiting the israeli air defense system that has a name that sounds like it comes out of a come iblg book. the iron dome. a big iron dome fly swater paid for in part by the united states. and that's where our domestic politics intruded on today's presidenttial trip abroad. we are still trying to wrap our heads around the self inflicted unnecessary designed to be dumb budget cuts. the sequester. and yes, those cuts include the funding for the iron dome. at his press conference today with his israely counter part, the president oohed and aued. >> we're providing more security security assistance and advanced technology to israel than ever before. and that includes more support for the missile defenses like iron dome. we will take steps to ensure that there is no interruption of funding for iron dome. >> taking steps to ensure that there's no interruption of funding for iron dome. one of the ways to not interrupt the funding of the iron dome would be to get rid of the sequester. we're not talking about that. we're talki
, they want to cut the budget deficits and cut defense spending and simplify the tax code and lower tax rates. in a deal with president obama they could get the first four, more deficit reduction, protect defense, the democratic president would get some cover in cutting medicare and social security and they could simplify the tax code by taking out expenditures. they are now saying they want none of those things and also not going to get the tax rates and keep the sequester and not have a deal. i've asked a lot of them to walk me through the reasoning here and honestly never come to an answer i understand a little bit. >> does that mean they're post policy. even some things that seem like constants don't actually a matter them, it's pure politics, just positioning themselves vis-a-vis the president and not interested in a particular outcome for the country? >> i would like to have an answer where that isn't true. i really would. i've been trying to find it. i'm sure part is i'm not smart enough to do so or found the right people to have spoken to them. it's hard to come up with one. we can go
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)